Who's Going To Pass the Torch?

[Mike V]

Hi Steve,

Just wanted to comment on something I've seen a number of times on the boards. When people sometimes ask pointed questions about mastering techniques, you will many times not divulge information because it is "trade secret". Well, I understand, because you have to work (and eat), but wouldn't the world be a better place (maybe stretching here) if mastering, recording and mixing engineers could study, say, the "Steve Hoffman Do's and Dont's Bible of Sound Recording"? Certainly from an archival standpoint, someone has to pass the torch regarding proper transfer of vintage recordings. Please let that person be you!

I guess what needs to be done is we need to find a way to make you filthy rich so you wouldn't care so much about being put out of a job. Maybe we could all chip in for lottery tickets and cross our fingers?

[Steve Hoffman]

I am afraid that most mastering engineers like a "different" sound from mine. So I doubt a "how to" list would do any good.

I think that most of the loyal DCC/SH Forum posters now know more about how to find the right tapes, (and what to do with them), than some engineers out there. I think that's great!

[Mike V]

Now that's depressing! I was hoping the issue would be one of poor training, lack of proper mentoring.

That is really cool that so many here on the boards have the ears and sense to know the difference. So many I know still wonder why I have 5 copies of Electric Ladyland (among so many others), on all different formats, from all different countries, different vintage, etc. It comes down to the mastering, always!

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by Mike V
Now that's depressing! I was hoping the issue would be one of poor training, lack of proper mentoring.

It comes down to the mastering, always!

It does indeed. That was the reason I jumped in to the mastering side of the process back when I was reissuing compilations in the 1980's. I was just an administrator before that.

Using the correct tape and mastering it the "right" way can make all the difference. Assuming of course that my "right" way is also your "right" way. ;)

[Mike V]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman


It does indeed. That was the reason I jumped in to the mastering side of the process back when I was reissuing compilations in the 1980's. I was just an administrator before that.

Well, I wouldn't knock administrators. Apparently some of the best ears are out there in administration!

You do great work. Obviously a lot of people agree with your approach and appreciate your sound. It must be nice having such state of the art tools at your disposal these days. A lot of your early work sounds so good even today, and I can't imagine that MCA had anywhere near the quality of gear you use today.

Another question though - did you often find yourself wanting to work on projects a lot longer than some folks at MCA would allow? I mean, how much could you push back when you work inside a major, and you felt the work had to be done properly (or not be done at all)?

[Steve Hoffman]

I managed to do what I needed to in most cases back then. Just a few cases where I was rushed, but it still worked out ok. They were very understanding for the most part!

By the way, the mastering gear back then is exactly the same stuff that I use now. I avoid new digital workstations for the most part!

[Michael]

Hey Steve, If it works why change it! Obviously It works for us!

[Mike V]

It's nice to hear that they gave you some latitude. Hopefully not much has changed in the years between with newer engineers. I must say though, I am very surprised about the equipment, but it makes sense since the basic technology hasn't changed for either redbook CD or analog tape. But I would imagine that MCA didn't have vintage gear for 50's material transfers. I understand you like to use equipment matching those actually utilized in the original sessions (or during original mixdown if done)? I totally agree with that approach, and it must bring some added quality to the final product.

I have a very rudimentary understanding of what equipment comes into play during remastering. Basically, I would imagine a flat transfer to redbook CD involves an original vintage open reel deck for analogue (if available) connected to super clean power source (well, all components would be actually), super nice interconnects, to super jitter-free and accurate 16/44.1 a/d converter to Umatic tape, or maybe to directly to glass master. This is easiest case scenario, and no tweaks necessary involving misaligned heads, azimuth problems, speed errors, tape degradation (baking), etc... The complexities stack up I'm sure once you involve other factors (adding or subtracting eq, etc....). But what did I miss here? Anything?

But here's where I'm going with this. I've seen (through a Tom Port auction) a Marantz tube amp you had owned up for auction, and it was claimed that this amp was used in mastering the Roy Orbison DCC issue. Where in the chain would a power amplifier come into play? Like I said, I'm ignorant of much of this, so please humor me if you don't mind

:D

Thanks very much Steve! As you can see, I am really loving being a new member of the boards.

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by Mike V


I have a very rudimentary understanding of what equipment comes into play during remastering.

But here's where I'm going with this. I've seen (through a Tom Port auction) a Marantz tube amp you had owned up for auction, and it was claimed that this amp was used in mastering the Roy Orbison DCC issue. Where in the chain would a power amplifier come into play?


"I have a very rudimentary understanding"....Uhh, more than that I think. Are you an engineer by any chance?


I used the Marantz 8B as my monitor amp, to get a little "slower" sound, more in keeping with what they might have been monitoring on "back then". Normally I would have used a McIntosh MC 60 or similar amp, but I wanted the more accurate, faster bass of the Marantz along with the vintage sound.

Of course, I also use modern amps as well...:)

[Mike V]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman

"I have a very rudimentary understanding"....Uhh, more than that I think. Are you an engineer by any chance?



I'm flattered that you'd think so, but I'm not! Actually I start a new job tomorrow at Cigna insurance (not claims, so please don't send me hate mail if you have Cigna!). I'm trying to help pay the bills for a family of four here, so chasing dreams won't be on my list for a while :(. I'm just a really obsessed hobbyist like many of the members here, and I of course harbor dreams of dropping everything, heading to LA, and plunging myself into the vaults. If anything interests me the most, it would be the race to preserve the vast recorded heritage for future generations. I imagine you see your work as a little bit of that (endless vault research, searching for "lost" masters of great recordings, etc..). Hopefully there are legions of archival specialists involving themselves in preservation efforts these days, and hopefully they are well paid and busy!

But anyway, back to the business above. I would assume that to get the ultimate experience from the Oribson CD (according to your ears!) I need to purchase that very Marantz amp and get some of your monitors into my basement (never mind the lousy acoustics down there ;) ). I guess that could be my next project, assuming this new job goes well :D :D

[Steve Hoffman]

Originally posted by Mike V




I would assume that to get the ultimate experience from the Oribson CD (according to your ears!) I need to purchase that very Marantz amp and get some of your monitors into my basement :D

Actually Mike, some of that "sound" is built right into the DCC Gold CD of Orbison, so you can listen on any old modern stuff and still get a taste of the vintage sound. If you listen to my stuff on vintage gear, you really are getting a double dose!

Good luck with your new job!:)

[Mike V]

That's good, 'cause my system needs all the software help it can get! I am a big believer in software first. You have to pick your battles somewhere when on a tight budget, so I like to be sure the recordings themselves are of highest quality. I'm happy to inform you that no less than 15% of my CD collection has been mastered by you (most of it DCC).

That test pressing in the drawing would make a nice addition! I am now crossing my fingers and holding my breath!

Thanks Steve.

[Steve Hoffman]

I just do 'em the way I like to hear them. It's worked for me so far!

[Grant]

I guess that means you aren't going to answer the question. Oh well...

[Doug Hess Jr.]

Actually, I don't know if Steve COULD tell us if he wanted to. Sure, he could give us lists and examples, but the phrase, "Lend me your ears" doesn't work in the real world. Talkshow host Rush Limbaugh just got one of those implants because he went deaf. He correctly said one of the major problems to explaining what it is like to wear one is that no one can explain to anyone else what things sound like to them. I do appreciate the insights Steve provides, but he can't accurately explain what he hears. It's like trying to describe WHY you like a certain combination of toppings on a pizza. You just know what you like and hope the others sharing the pizza like those toppings too. Steve just has a way of serving up an audio pizza just the way most of us like it. Remember, there are some folks on here who don't think Steve's version of a particular CD is the end all best version.

[Dan]

This is SOMEWHAT related. My alma mater still teaches beginning audio/radio production students how to edit with a blade! One of the excercises is to remove a verse from the original recording of "Hey Bartender". :cool: You gotta start somewhere!

[Grant]

Originally posted by Dan
This is SOMEWHAT related. My alma mater still teaches beginning audio/radio production students how to edit with a blade! One of the excercises is to remove a verse from the original recording of "Hey Bartender". :cool: You gotta start somewhere!

Good. Then they will appreciate how easy we have it these days with DAW. Tape splicing can be a real...

[Grant]

Originally posted by dough1981
[B]Actually, I don't know if Steve COULD tell us if he wanted to. Sure, he could give us lists and examples, but the phrase, "Lend me your ears" doesn't work in the real world.

I was talking about equipment.

[Gary]

Originally posted by Steve Hoffman.........

By the way, the mastering gear back then is exactly the same stuff that I use now. I avoid new digital workstations for the most part!

Steve, I finally found a copy of your Mama's and Pappa's CD when you were with MCA. On the CD, it says "Digitally remastered by Steve Hoffman".

Was it really digitally remastered? :eek:

[Steve Hoffman]

Every single thing on compact disc is digitally remastered, my son.

[Gary]

Oh, I get it! I think. Maybe.

So a flat transfer is "digital remaster" because that's the only way the music can get to the digital medium, but the sound is not punched up or destroyed by EQ'ing, NoNoising, etc. It's just a straight transfer. Is that right?

And a modern remaster is really a re-remaster, done by some engineer going back to a source (tapes, generation tapes, old CD's, etc.) and redoing it again? And punching it up, NoNoising it, sucking out any residual life left in the recording and ensuring future generations scorn the recording techniques, old engineers and the actual music from generations past?

Sorry, got carried away a bit there....... :o


;)

[BradOlson]

Right.

[Grant]

Uh, no.

A flat transfer is sometimes desirable IF the tape sounds great by itself with no tweaking. Most of the time, a tape is EQ'd a bit, and maybe tweaked a bit in some other ways before and/or during the transfer to digital. Don't think of a master tape as the finished product, think of it as working material with some being of a higher grade than others. You can build a better product with better materials.

A remaster is usually meant as when someone comes back to title and redoes it. Hopefully, the engineer will use either the same good tape, or a better one. here is where the difference is. Many engineers these days will boost the levels 6-12db, and EQ to compensate for the losses that happen due to compression/limiting. Some may take measures to reduce noise.

A remaster is not a bad thing. It is the WAY it's done that matters. What Steve does, in fact, is remaster recordings. See?

[Steve Hoffman]

Sigh. Well, to get nit-picky, if you take a master tape and transfer it flat to digital, or muck around with it as you are doing the transfer, I consider it MASTERING, not REmastering.

The term "remastering" came from the old RCA-Victor Jazz LP series from the 1960's called "Vintage Music". They took old 78 RPM metal parts (mastered on to wax already) and REmastered them for LP, (for the most part badly, but that's another story).

I've been guilty of using both terms to describe my work, but in general, something would qualify as a REmaster, if a mastering engineer was using something for a source that was already mastered once, like an EQ "Cutting Master" tape or something.

Please, don't remind me that I've used both terms. I know. Sometimes I think that "remastered by" might help an album that not many people know, but would be willing to take a chance on if they read REMASTERED, like some jazz things I've done.

[Grant]

Yeah, the use of the terms "mastering" and "remastering" has always been loose and confusing, just as "mix" and "remix". Then people bring in their own interpretation. Sometimes the term is used as a marketing catchphrase.

Confusing to the end user.